Live data from Hacker News

Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

edition.cnn.com

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#101
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>foreign journalists Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald are American citizens?

Guardian and Der Spiegel were what I was thinking about. Greenwald is now in Brazil. Poitras is enemy of U.S. military who previously did exposes on foreign activities and certainly would publish even legit secrets. My comment might need some clarification but it's still accurate. More so after Greenwald's stunt of running with the stuff to Brazil to start his own publication.

>Poitras is enemy of U.S. military

Poitras is pretty clearly not a fan of the US military, but I don't think she's been declared an "enemy combatant". Calling her an "enemy" of the military is disingenuous. The US military does plenty of horrific and inexcusable things, and criticizing those who commit clear war crimes does not make someone an "enemy".

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#102
post #11

It is unbelievable how (self)censored the mainstream media/politics discussion is. Keith Alexander lied to the congress on record, whistleblowers before Snowden were jailed for blowing the whistle and there was absolutely no chance he could reveal/fix any illegal wrongdoing by the government via the official whistleblowers channels. He did not run away and ruin his sweet life for the lulz, there was clearly no other…

Petraeus too. Now he's "recovered" and will be a big player in the next administration

You mean Betrayus, who gave away secrets for sex (and in part so that he would look better in his "biography," and most likely turn that into a permanent political career) and received a slap on the wrist.

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guardian and Der Spiegel were what I was thinking about. Greenwald is now in Brazil. Poitras is enemy of U.S. military who previously did exposes on foreign activities and certainly would publish even legit secrets. My comment might need some clarification but it's still accurate. More so after Greenwald's stunt of running with the stuff to Brazil to start his own publication.

>Poitras is enemy of U.S. military Poitras is pretty clearly not a fan of the US military, but I don't think she's been declared an "enemy combatant". Calling her an "enemy" of the military is disingenuous. The US military does plenty of horrific and inexcusable things, and criticizing those who commit clear war crimes does not make someone an "enemy".

What are you even talking about? I said she's an enemy of the U.S. military. That encompasses many things she can do to disrupt U.S. military. One is leak its classified secrets about operational capabilities in use against legit opponents. All of them were fine with doing that. Over and over. Definitely an enemy combatant on cyber side or Espionage Act contender otherwise. I don't mean technical interpretations of it either: straight-up describing targets, tools, and techniques to our enemies. That's exactly the kind of thing it was conceived for.

Yeah, she's an enemy of the U.S. military for sure. If you need balance, she's not the person to trust for review and reveal. On other hand, if it's domestic stuff... the actual whistleblowing... she's one of best people to handle it because she won't shut up. Just got to do some redactions before turning it over to reduce damage. She and Greenwald did the one's I'd have been concerned about on domestic leaks, mainly protecting the workers. So, that wasn't a problem.

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is this argument not immediately raised every time some clown uses the "he broke the law, he has to face the music" argument? Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions. They seek to frame the debate in the context constructed by Wall Street and Washington and redirect anger and angst so that people fight against each other instead of agai…

That's definitely an interesting theory. And intentional or not, I think side-battles do deflect attention from the 1% issue (as you called "oligarchs"). However, I think you do a disservice to your cause when you use blanket remarks like "Corporate media outlets exist to disseminate propaganda, not seek consistent, logical answers to important questions" without clarifying. I think we can easily rule out that all co…

>I think we can easily rule out that all corporate news organizations (npr, washington post) are propaganda services (I for one, have a relative who worked at one of those).

NPR and the Washington Post are certainly propaganda services.

> (I for one, have a relative who worked at one of those)

I'm not suggesting that everyone who works for a corporate news organization is engaged in some sort of grand conspiracy, taking money to consciously do the bidding of the evil oligarchs (though some are). It seems clear that most of them are just as oblivious to their complicity in the degradation of society as the factory worker who collects a paycheck assembling bombs and missiles. Awareness and critical thinking are not attributes that are nurtured and encouraged in modern society. From the time you can crawl, you are conditioned to shuffle around at the signaling of a bell and efficiently absorb and regurgitate the Washington/Wall Street narrative (in public schools and elsewhere). Failure to do so as a child results in, at best, disciplinary action and bad grades. The less fortunate are subjected to the forced ingestion of psychotropic drugs that permanently alter the brain chemistry of developing children.

> Perhaps you should try to come up with a theory on why well-intentioned reporters would not see the situation you do (e.g. group think).

Reporters are not hired by corporate media outlets because of their zeal for truth and their refusal to stop turning over rocks to discover inconvenient truths - quite the opposite. Reporters are hired for their ability and willingness to absorb and regurgitate conventional corporate wisdom. They are hired for their penchant not to turn over any rock that they aren't supposed to turn over.

A reporter that doesn't parrot the Washington/Wall Street narrative soon finds himself without a job. Why do you think Seymour Hersch, an investigative reporter with an incredibly impressive resume stretching back 50 years, has to publish in the London Review of Books? Why do you think establishment reporters from every corporate outlet came out of the woodwork to attack him when he started publishing well-sourced, investigative articles that clashed with the Washington/Wall Street narrative?

To quote Upton Sinclar: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#105
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Keith Alexander lied to the congress on record You forgot the war liars/criminals Bush, Rice and Powell.

I was under the impression that Powell was a man of integrity and really resented being used by the Bush administration to provide justification for the war. I thought he was just regurgitating the lies told to him. Edit: Am I being downvoted for expressing my knowledge of the situation? If you think I am wrong, say so. Try to educate me. Downvoting for disagreeing does nothing. When he testified about yellowcake ura…

A man who knows what war actually means - human suffering and misery rather than a video game - shouldn't allow himself to be used to promote a war he things is unnecessary. Otherwise he is not 'a man of integrity', but 'a man keeping his prestige position by letting other people suffer greatly for it'.

This isn't indirect suffering like 'your laptop was probably built by crying workers', but a clear, direct chain of events.

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#106
post #32

I hope Obama does something to resolve both the Snowden situation and get Chelsea Manning out of prison before he leaves office. I can't see what the downside is to him of doing the right thing at this point.

>I can't see what the downside is to him of doing the right thing at this point. It would be political suicide for the Democratic Party and guarantee a Trump victory.

as if Clinton had a chance against Trump.

It's like the opposite of McCain/Obama in 2008. Trump is the "Hope" candidate, and Clinton is the "dear god, don't let her in the office" candidate.

If anything, it would probably unite the liberal base, But Clinton is a "centrist"; She's trying to win over republicans with her pro-war agenda. She isn't confident in the liberal base being large enough to win an election.

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#107
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take issue with the notion that an organization can't serve as a propaganda machine when the people who work there have good intentions. Why? Because practically everybody has good intentions. Even genocidal maniacs believe their actions are merely an "unfortunate necessity" that can be justified by looking at the long run. If the worst of humanity isn't contradicted by "good intentions" then nothing is. It's human…

"Besides, no shadowy conspiracy is needed to explain that which can be explained easily by incentives and social order." This is exactly my point. Take care with the word propaganda, even if you mean to imply the latter most will assume you're intending to communicate the former and write you off entirely.

propaganda is exactly the word that should be used, but people are afraid of losing mindshare by telling the truth. It's as if everyone subconsciously understands that you have to soften your language in order to not be labeled an extremist.

does anyone really believe the media is independant in 2016?

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#108
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheney and Rumsfeld had power since they seized it in 1975 (google "Halloween massacre"). They're responsible for far more than just the Iraq war.

Holy crap, I didn't even know all that happened! Combined with military efforts and Bush-Cheney Administration, it shows quite a strong cabal that has lasted for a long time with that close-knit group. "Democracy" in action. ;)

they have all the trimmings of fascism, a trail of dead bodies in their wake, countless administrations that they've popped up in, and actual ties to the Nazis (not just Prescott Bush, either).

But you'll be godwin'd if you compare them out loud.

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#109
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that Powell was a man of integrity and really resented being used by the Bush administration to provide justification for the war. I thought he was just regurgitating the lies told to him. Edit: Am I being downvoted for expressing my knowledge of the situation? If you think I am wrong, say so. Try to educate me. Downvoting for disagreeing does nothing. When he testified about yellowcake ura…

It's extremely unlikely most of the top people involved didn't know. See: https://theintercept.com/2016/02/18/trump-is-right-bush-lied... There's also a link in there to a section of Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack claiming Powell knowingly altered evidence for his UN presentation.

is it just me, or is Trump way more libertarian than anyone is giving him credit for?

(disclaimer: anarcho-capitalist living in Canada. I have no stake in the game.)

Re: Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a 'public service'

#110
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think he's not a spy?

Serious question. Why do you think he is one? What that he's done is in anyway consistent with the work of a spy?

If you look up Snowden's history, you'll see that before he was working for Booz Allen Hamilton, he was a CIA asset. He was literally a spy before going into the private sector.

So, if you're a CIA asset, and then you leak NSA data from the private sector, are you still a CIA asset, or are you a defector and "former spy"?

Post reply on HN